What features would a geologic formation need in order to convince you that the Earth is old and there was not a recent global flood?
Without a recent global flood, we would not have a geologic column, or at least not one that resembles what we see today.
Could we have a geologic column if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old?
I just addressed that. I said ânot one that resembles what we see todayâ.
In what ways would a geologic column produced by a 4.5 billion year geologic history without a recent global flood differ from the one we see today?
Can you help us understand that?
And are you implying that all or most of the geologic column was created by the year long Noahic flood?
One of many reasons why Iâm interested in your explanation of the geologic column is that I know so many YECs who flat-out deny the existence of a geologic column.
Why not? Why could mainstream science not be correct about the geologic column being produced basically as they describe it?
It seems rather strange to me to say not only that the geologic column is being wrongfully interpreted by mainstream science, but that we simply wouldnât have a geologic column without a global flood. That just makes no sense.
Why is a global flood required to produce layers of sedimentation? Are you denying that sedimentation even occurs or could build up over time? What are you saying?
Just to pick this example:
It seems to me mainstream science makes extremely good sense of the topology of the continents and the particular features of the mid-atlantic ridge. Why couldnât the theory of plate tectonics as understood by modern geology not produce these features over many millions of years?
A 4.5 billion year old geological column would not even remotely resemble the one we find today. It would not even come close to containing the fossils we find today. In fact, you would be lucky to find even an occasional fossilized organism.
Hereâs your answer:
https://creation.com/geology-transformation-tool
I donât. Itâs good evidence for the Flood. However, thatâs not by any means to imply that our knowledge of it is complete, or that we find a totally consistent picture in all places.
Makes plenty of sense. The geologic column is evidence of a global flood. Gradualistic processes would not produce what we find.
Lots of reasons. Getting into all of it is way outside the scope of this thread. For one thing, the layers we find are often seen to lay cleanly and flatly on one another, with no evidence of long periods of erosion between them (as we would expect given an old earth).
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
Any time you see a fossil, youâre seeing evidence of rapid, catastrophic burial. Normal death circumstances do not produce fossils. (And certainly not polystrate ones!)
A geological column thread could be very interesting. Iâm all for it.
Yet it is topical that a number âcreation scienceâ authors have claimed that the Bible âclearlyâ means to say that there is no such thing as a geologic column.
Thatâs an amazing claimâand another good reason to start a thread on that topic.
What??!
As for âpolystrate fossilsâ, weâve not been around that rodeo in a while. (Iâm being casual but not dismissive. I just mean that it is fun topic and we havenât discussed it in a while on PSâalthough it has certainly been discussed many times.)
Why not? Since we already have a 4.5 BY geologic column full of fossils what would be the problem?
That is much, much too simplistic an answer. Youâve also confused âgradualistic processesâ with mainstream geology. Mainstream geology posits a combination of both gradualistic and catastrophic processes of varying degrees of scope and magnitude.
It is not at all clear why we would not expect that, and surely any expectation of what we should find would depend on local circumstances. Even now in the present, the environments and processes occurring across the globe are far from identical in scale or type. There are no glaciers anywhere near where I live, just to pick an example.
So what? Mainstream geology doesnât say there were never any catastrophic burials taking place. Big but ultimately local and restricted landslides happen.
Iâm amazed at this extremely simplistic thinking youâre exhibiting.
I just thought of a great way to once and for all falsify all you people who think you know what an ancient geologic column should look like â Venus, a planet with plate tectonics.
If you can just be patient, we should know within a few short years what a true statigraphy should look like when formed over a vast number of years, and without a flood involved. You are likely to be shocked at the sight. It will be basically featureless.
VENUS is the answer to settle this quarrel.
Itâs not complicated. Of course, if you want to talk about each and every example, then you can get just as complicated as you wish. But at the end of the day, even a child can see and understand the evidence for Noahâs Flood. Thatâs why the Bible says the âscoffersâ willingly overlook the evidence. You donât need a PhD to see this evidence. Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!
No. âCatastrophic burialâ is just one of a number of fossilization scenarios. More have been discovered over the decades. To me one of the most interesting is that a creature dies and sinks into anoxic conditions in a body of water and gradually fossilizes. No global flood necessary and no rapid burial.
Hereâs some basics on fossilization processes:
http://geology.isu.edu/Alamo/fossils/process_fossilization.php
Wikipedia has some summaries also as well as citations to primary literature on the topic.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect explains the Joggins polystrate argument.
Thatâs demonstrably false. We have many examples of paleocanyons which eroded out and then were infilled by later sedimentation.
That is demonstrably false too as we have lots of evidence for Lagerstätten fossils, delicately formed fossils which form slowly in anoxic lake beds. Theyâre found all over the world and at ages from a few million years to Precambrian.
Konservat-Lagerstätten, on the other hand, are deposits known for the extraordinary preservation of fossilized life forms, especially where the soft parts are preserved. Such exquisite preservation require specific environmental conditions, such as anoxic (little or no oxygen) mud and sediment that inhibits bacterial decomposition processes for enough time for mineral exchange, precipitation, and other chemical processes to form casts and films of delicate softer body parts.
List of Lagerstatten fossil sites.
Donât you ever do any research yourself before posting CMIâs boiler plate nonsense?
Iâve never understood why what a child can see and understand helps buttress a claim. Children can easily âsee and understandâ all sorts of ideas which are obviously false and even ridiculous.
This type of argument is not much different from the Argument from Popularity: âEverybody knows that the moon landing was faked.â
Itâs not complicated. Of course, if you want to talk about each and every example, then you can get just as complicated as you wish. But at the end of the day, even a child can see and understand the evidence for Noahâs Flood. Thatâs why the Bible says the âscoffersâ willingly overlook the evidence. You donât need a PhD to see this evidence. Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!
Ahh the ultimate trump-card assertion that even a child can see it. Clearly there can be no substantive rebuttal to the blind invoking of child intuition. Given that, let me offer it back: Sorry Price, but even children can see how absurd that is.